ed 346 513 cs 507 827douglas ehninger's conceptualization of rhetorical theories as...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 346 513 CS 507 827
AUTHOR Collins, StephenTITLE A Rhetorical Systems Approach Based on a General
Systems Theory Analog.PUB DATE 31 Oct 91NOTE 30p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association (77th, Atlanta, GA,October 31-November 3, 1991).
PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) -- Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Needs Assessment; *Rhetorical Criticism; *Rhetorical
Theory; *Systems Analysis; *Systems ApproachIDENTIFIERS Bertalanffy (Ludwig von); *Ehninger (Douglas);
*General Systems Theory
ABSTRACTDouglas Ehninger's conceptualization of rhetorical
theories as "systems" has been criticized for its vagueness interminology, its potentially skewed perspective, and its inability toapply a stasis to a kinetic phenomenon--namely, rhetoric. The sevenrecommendations offered in this paper attempt to expand upon theapproach and correct for shortcomings. Each recommendation for changeis based on the more detailed and fully developed theory of Ludwigvon Bertalanffy. First, a system should be limited only by method andhierarchy of ends, not by size. Second, rhetorical systems should be .conceptualized as open systems that exchange components with theirenvironment. Third, systems analysis (particularly at the level of asingle rhetoric or smaller) should attempt to determine interactionpatterns among rhetorical elements or subsystems upon an evaluationof their hierarchy. Fourth, environmental needs should beconceptualized as hierarchies ordered from the most general to themost specific, with only certain needs being emphasized at a giventime. Fifth, systems from different time periods should be comparedto see how emphasis pattetns within the hierarchy of potential needshave changed over time. Sixth, systems should be contrasted to seewhy they differ. Fihally, rhetorical systems analysis should focus onlong Jrm changes within particular systems. (One table, 5 figuresand 19 endnotes are included.) (Author/SG)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
*************u*********************************************************
.PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER LERIC)
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOnce of Educational Research Ind improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI
ii/This document has baen reproduced asreceived Irom the person or OrganitatiOnOriginating ii
r Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality
Points ot vrevr or opinions stated in this docu .ment do not necessoAry represent officialOEM position o policy
A RHETORICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH BASEDON A GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY ANALOG
STEPHEN COLLINS
COMMUNICATION STUDIESNORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
OCTOBER 31, 1991
()
BEST COPY AVAIARE
I
ABSTRACT
Douglas Ehninger's conceptualization of rhetorical theories as "systems" has been
criticized for its vagueness in terminology, its potentially skewed perspective, and
its inability to apply a stasis to a kinetic phenomenon, rhetoric. In an attempt to
expand upon this approach and correct for its shortcomings, this paper makes seven
recommendations. Each recommendation for change is based on the more detailed
and fully developed general systems theory suggested by Ludwig von Bertalanffy
during the 1950s.
A RHETORICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH BASED
ON A GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY ANALOG
The term system, general by nature, appears in many diverse disciplines. It
can be found in scientific theory, social theory, and even rhetorical theory. In the
latter, the concept of systems gives an interesting perspective to the development of
various rhetorics over the past two thousand years. The rhetorical systems
approach, originally developed by Douglas Ehninger in 1967 and 1968, looks at
individual treatises or groups of treatises as systems which arise out of a culture or
environment in orde. to satisfy a societal need, by achieving one or 3everal ends.
According to Ehninger, these ends are organized in some type of hierarchy. The
system itself is defined to be "an organized, cunsistent, and coherent way of talking
about something."'
This conceptualization, though unique within rhetorical historiography,
unfortunately, has received minimal attention within journals in the decades
following its conception. Robert Scott addressed the concept with Ehninger during
the mid-1970s in two articles and a 1978 Speech Communication Association
seminar on rhetorical systems generated articles by McKerrow, Skopec, Anderson,
and Leff that were published in 1982.2 These latter articles either defended or
attacked the approach laid down by Ehninger and Scott. Skopec wrote one
additional article that actually applies systems theory in 1982 when he studied the
Eighteenth-century theory of expression within select rhetorics.3 In each of the
above cases, very little new theory or clarification of Ehninger's rhetorical systems
approach was ever generated.
The articles did discuss some of the approach's shortcomings, however;
shortcomings that may have severely limited the approach's usefulness. These
shortcomings are primarily a vagueness in terminology, a potentially skewed
perspective on historic rhetorics, and an inability to confine rhetorical phenomena.
Skopec noted that the vagueness of Ehninger's system definition could possibly
lead to ambiguity in describing rhetorical phenomena and, consequently, make the
identification of systems an "endless task."4 Anderson criticized the approach for
not studying a rhetoric's relationship to its environment in nearly enough detail and
denounced it for pulling rhetorics out of their historical context, essentially tainting
them with a future perspective or a "whig bias."5 Finally, Ehninger, himself, noted
the approach's inability to confine phenomena which cannot be confined easily.
According to Ehninger, the systems historiographer must first apply "a false stasis
to a kinetic phenomenon" and, second, systematize arts or skills of discourse which
cannot be "compartmentalized."6 Each shortcoming, by itself, could easily thwart
any valuable systems research.
The criticism leads one to conclude that the rhetorical systems approach was
either a bad idea from the start or that Ehninger's concepts are simply a roughly
hewn, but insightful, foundation block. This paper will argue that Ehninger, z.,nd to
a lesser degree Scott, only touched the surface of the 'iceberg' and that a more
complete view of their approach most likely lays hidden within the general systems
theory developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and others during the 1950s and
1960s. Bertalanffy focused his attention on the creation of a systems theory that
could be used in any discipline regardless of whether it was a science or a liberal
art. This broad, multi-disciplinary approach stl,. , several similarities with
Ehninger's rhetorical systems approach. First, bosh address systems as phenomena
that interact with their environments. Second, both address a large range of
potential system sizes. Third, both address the concept of system hierarchy.
Fourth, both address system changes over timc. Finally, both attempt to use their
theories to explain constantly changing kinetic phenomena that were previously
thought too complicated to explain. General systems theory, thus, appears to be a
close, though much more detailed, analog of the rhetorical systems approach.
Though Ehninger gives no mention of this body of work in his articles, he may
have been influenced by it indirectly. Whether this is the case or not, general
systems theory may give rhetoricians a good idea of what the rest of Ehninger's
'iceberg' looks like. This paper, therefore, will offer seven recommendations for
clarilying and expanding the rhetorical systems approach. An explanation of
Ehninger and Scott's tenets as well as g meral systems theory concepts will
accompany each recommendation when needed. The degree to which each
recommendation is dependent on general systems theory varies.
Recommendation 1: A system should not be limited to any particular size,
but, instead, should be constrained only by its method and hierarchy of ends.
Ehninger states that a system must be comprised of a "hierarchy of ends" and a
"distinguishing method" and that the system can be either a single treatise or a
group of treatises.7 This last criteria, dealing with a system's size limits, serves no
useful purpose and may even hinder analysis. Though Ehninger demonstrates the
value of analysis on a macroscopic scale and suggests that analysis of a single
treatise has utility, size limitation hurts some forms of systems study. For instance,
several individual sections of Aristotle's single treatise Rhetoric cover an enormous
3 ti
amount of material compared to Alexandre Sylvain's The Orator. The former deals
with three forms of discourse -- forensic, political, and epideictic -- while the latter
only deals with a select number of judicial cases or examples an orator may
encounter. If the size restriction is adhered to, a rhetorician would have to avoid
looking at just the judicial elements of Rhetoric since they do not comprise a system
in toto and, consequently, miss potential insights that may come, for example, from
a comparison with other judicial elements found in works by scholars such as
Sylvain.
The recommendation to lift the size restriction is supported by Bertalanffy's
concept of systems. His general theory discusses systems of cells at one end of the
scale and systems of society on the other end.8 There is no size constraint. The
only significant difference between the two extremes is the basic unit of study
within each system. One system focuses on single cells; the other focuses on entire
populaces or cultures. Within rhetorical systems, the unit of study varies primarily
with the end. Large systems such as the ones Ehninger studied exhibit broad ends.
Smaller systems exhibit more specific ends. In any case, systems should be
constrained solely by their method and end. If a method and end constitute a single
element within a treatise, then that element should constitute a system. For
ingtance, a study of Aristotle's Rhetoric may reveal that pathos constitutes a system.
Its end is to persuade audiences artistically. The method involves putting the
audience into a certain frame of mind by stirring their emotions. By considering
pathos as a system, a systems analyst can study its sub-structure, its interaction
with others elements within such treatises as the Rhetoric, or its survivability and
changes within other treatises through Roman times and the present. A. Kibedi
Varga suggests that if rhetorics were considered as systems, with sub-systems at
4
various levels, analysis could be quite fruitful between levels normally found
subordinated within a rhetoric;
If we are willing to translate the rhetorical curriculum into a
hierarchical rhetorical system, we can maintain that the relationship
between the lower levels has been studied, even if not enough, by
stylistics (grammar-elocution) or by rhetoric (elocution-invention);
the relationship spanning the highest to the lower levels [one of the
highest levels including pathos], on the contrary, hos been
traditionally neglected by rhetoric. . . . If students of classical and
Renaissance rhetoric try seriously to reconstruct the complete
framework cf rhetoric, they could thus offer a very valuable
contribution to a modern theory of discourse. 9
Varga's comments focus on the relationship between elements normally found
within rhetorics and treatises. The value of studying the interaction between such
elements, or levels such as elocution, invention, and pathos therefore is greatly
enhanced if system size is no longer a constraint on systems analysis.
In addition to allowing analysis along the lines suggested by Varga, systems
analysis also could consider microscopic analysis of only one single element. With
no size limitation, elocution could be studied to see how it changed over time.
Elocution formed one of five canons in Cicero's rhetoric. During the renaissance
scholars such as Henry Peacham put monumental emphasis on elocution and
excluded consideration of the four other canons. Within Thomas Wilson's treatise,
The Arte of Rhetorique, however, elocution appears with the four other canons.
Ramistic rhetoric, on the other hand, considers elocution to be one of the two main
divisions of rhetoric, the other being delivery. With so much variation in
elocution's role over time, its analysis as a system interacting with different
environments or as a sub-system interacting with different sub-systems over time
could be very insightful. This type of analysis simply requires that Ehninger's
constraint on the "treatise as smallest system" be removed.
A systems analyst may even decide to look at individual topoi as systems.
The range of analysis is effectively limitless as long as a method and end can be
identified for a rhetolicl element.
If the system constitutes many treatises, the systems analysis can still
proceed as long as all the elements needed to complete the system are present. This
would include rhi -Nies which borrow from two or more treatises as a collective
body. The system may encompass all treatises of a classical nature and have an
extremely broad method and end as identified by Ehninger within his works. In
every case, the system should be constrained by its method and end, and not by its
size.
Recommendation 2: rhetorical systems should be conceptualized as open
systems that exchange components with their environment. Closed systems
assume that there is no interchange between the system and environment, whereas
open systems do assume interchange between the system and environment.10 As
open systems, rhetorical systems engage in a unique exchange. The environmental
exchange defines a system's purpose and is laid out by Ehninger within his works.
The system inputs a need or responds to a need from rhetors or theorists within the
environment and then attempts to render a service back to the environment to
hopefully meet the need in as successful a manner as possible." This 'need-
system-service rendered' model describes the system as it is meant to function.
6
The degree to which this rendering of a service is successful varies from case to
case.
If the system does not appear to function as well as it should, new systems
may appear to counter its inabilities to render a service. These new systems may
borrow heavily from a previous system or may be entirely unrelated to past efforts.
A lack of success may be signposted in several different ways. First, the work
under consideration may eventually cease to be printed. For a popular system such
as Ramistic rhetoric which received many different printings, fewer printings is a
sure sign that the system is losing popularity and its ability to serve the rhetorical
needs of the time. Second, a proliferation of new rhetorics may also signal a lack
of success. The publication of Bacon's Novum Organum and similar views
indicates a change within the environment. As change occurs, older systems may
lose the ability to satisfy new rhetorical needs. Third, a lack of success may be
signpcxsted by criticism from the environment. Richard Whately's rhetorical
system, embodied by his treatise Elements of Rhetoric, receives considerable
criticism in I. A . Richards' The 1-,..losophy of Rhetoric. Though some people may
consider Kenneth Burke's system of rhetoric as a masterpiece, it has endure6
criticism for its vagueness and confusion. The topoi have also seen their share of
criticism over the centuries indicating that as a system, they too have seen a great
deal of degeneration. Lamy's criticism strongly suggests some failure of the topoi:
This Art [the topics] is dangerous for persons of but indifferent
Learning, because it makes them acquiesce and sit down with small
suggestion easily obtain'd and neglect to seek after others of more
solid Importance. 12
7 1
In each case, the failing success of a system is reflected by scholars attacking the
system or pointing out errors in its functioning that need correcting. The short
comings, however, may be countered by revisions to the system. Such efforts may
attempt to repair the system through the revision of concepts or the addition of some
entirely new material to complement material already present. This may result in a
revised treatise or an entirely new one in attempts to correct perceived
shortcomings. Two of the best examples of adding new material in order to counter
or correct perceived shortcomings can be found in Cicero's Brutus and the Orator.
A group of rhetoricians kmown as the Attici favored a much more plain style than
that used by Cicero. After writing De Oratore Cicero mine under considerable
attack by the group "for exuberance and verbosity, fur the use of rhythmical
cadences which in their opinion softened and weakened his style, and for his
frigidity of wit."13 One of his chief critics, Brutus, took him to task at earnest and
supposedly prompted Cicero into writing not only Brutus but also the Orator.
Hendrickson sees Cicero's writing primarily as a defense -- what might even be
called a revision to counter failing success.
Cicero is at pains to represent the Orator as a work produced
at the insistent demand of Brutus. Exactly what this means it is
difficult to say, and doubtless there is in it an element of truth, but
scarcely I suspect as Cicero represents it. He would have his
readers believe that he does it to satisfy the eager curiosity of
Brutus. In reality however it is a reasonable belief that his work is
an outgrowth and product of 4issentin2 criticism [italics added1.14
1 I8
Another example of a revisionistic effort may be more timely. This study, for
instance, attempts to add scholarly input to the rhetorical systems approach, which
may be considered a system itself, in order to counter criticisms about the approach.
Another important concept that must be accounted for when studying
scholarly input is the self-regulation of the system within its environment. Scholars
who support and partially comprise the system regulate the iv ut of new concepts.
After all, some ideas for impro% a system may be viewed as entirely ridiculous.
The self-regulation to some extent protects the system and makes sure that it does
not deviate significantly from that state which most successfully meets a need--its
steady state. The self-regulation may take many forms. It may require a new
suggestion or idea to fit within the already existing structure of a past system. A
suggestion to include certain enthymemes within Henry Peacham's The Garden of
Eloquence, for example, would most likely have never succeeded since its structure
revolved entirely around stylistic devices such as figures and tropes. The
environment essentially determines the success of new systems based on
preconceived perceptions of what it needs in such a case. Self-regulation also may
require a new idea to fit into the moral scheme of society. For instance, a
suggestion that a rhetorical system should be updated to emphasize any and all
means necessary to persuade an audience would most likely be rejected straightway
uy Plato and rhetoricians such as Richard Weaver. Dramatic self-regulation of this
nature has occurred in disciplines such as astronomy and has affected such men as
Galileo Ga Wei who was punished for proclaiming that several heavenly bodies
revolve around Jupiter instead of around the Earth. Self-regulation may also
depend upon any number of other factors that affect scholaily acceptance of an idea.
9 1 1,)
The value of viewing rhetorics or elements of rhetorics as open systems can
be summed up as follows: by viewing rhetorics as open systems scholars can study
the complete life cycle of any particular rhetoric or rhetorical element or even several
generations of similar rhetorics or elements which attempt to adapt to fluctuating
environmental needs. Ehninger's conception of a rhetoric responding to a need
explains why a system comes into being and why the system survives or eventually
dies within a rhetorical environment which regulates the acceptance of new ideas.
Only by viewing a rhetoric or rhetorical element as an open system exchanging
components can a complete study of one particular system be made.
Recommendation 3: systems analysis, particularly at the level of a single
rhetoric or smaller, should attempt to determine the patterns of interaction among
rhetorical elements or sub-systems upon an evaluation of their hierarchy. Systems
analysis allows one to study how a single element affects an entire system. This
determines the degree of interaction of an element or sub-system and also its level
within the system's hierarchy. The recommendation originates with Bertalanffy's
concept of centralization and ties in well with Ehninger's notion of a "hierarchy of
ends." 15 Bertalanffy notes that a sub-system's "rank-order" depends on its ability
to affect other elements within a system. The greater the impact of any one sub-
system on the rest of the system, the greater the importance of the sub-system or its
centralization. Consequently, if a sub-system has a greater importance than other
sub-systems, it also has a broader end or purpose. For instance, a person's spinal
cord has a greater centralization or importance than a person's legs. Loss of leg
functioning results in a paraplegia. Loss of the spinal cord results in quadraplegia.
Note also that the "purpose" of the legs is to allow some flexibility in external
movement. The "purpose" of the spinal cord is to allow all flexibility in external
movement. Along a similar line of thought, a person's heart exhibits greater
centralization or importance than a person's spinal cord. Its purpose is also
broader. Whereas the spinal cord's purpose may be viewed as ullowing movement,
the heart's purpose is to maintain blood flow and, consequently, life.
Similarly, the degree of interaction of a rhetorical element within a rhetoric
determines its centralization and position within a hierarchy. For instance, consider
several different sub-systems existing within Aristotle's Rhetoric. A few of these
are the three types of oratory--deliberative, forensic, and epideictic: the two types of
proof--inartistic and artistic: and the three modes of proofethos, pathos, and
logos. Those sub-systems with the highest position within the hierarchy exhibit the
greatest centralization and also the broadest ends. If one removes deliberative
oratory from the system, roughly one-third of the system's oratory is destroyed. If
artistic proof is removed from the system, all three types of oratory are still
possible, but the methods for achieving the three different ends are reduced. The
removal of artistic proof only disables the three types of oratory while the removal
of deliberative oratory obliterates one of the three. If logos is removed from the
system, the net damage is even less severe. The three types of oratory now at least
have two methods of generating artistic and inartistic proof whereas before they had
none. The centralization and broadness of ends are summarized below (Table 1).
ill 4
DEGREE OFSUB-SYSTEM CENTRALIZAT :'N BROADNESS OF END
deliberative oratory greatest greatest (to persuade for oragainst a course of action)
artistic proof less less (to persuade using created/artificial material)
logos least least (to persuade usingmaterial that comprises thespeech's content)
Table 1. Sub-systems and their Centralization: A Dependency on their Broadness of End
The total hierarchy for these sub-systems within the Rhetoric appears as follows
(Fig. 1).
Rhetoric
DeliberativeOratory
I
FITartistic Artistic1
ProofJ
Proof
ethos Patho
ForensicOratory
r
InartisticProof
EpideicticOratory
i
ethos
ArtisticProof
1
Patho
..Inartistic
Proof
Ethos Pathosi Pathosl Ethos
1
Etirs7.1 IPaiho
Pathos'
Figure 1. A Partial Hierarchy of Aristotle's Rhetoric
Interaction may also be determined solely to allow analysis of a single
element. A scholar may not be interested in an entire hierarchy, but in only one
element such as logos. A scholar wishing to study how logos affects other
elements within Aristotle's Rhetoric may find his or her study enhanced by
removing logos and its sub-systems from Aristotle's text. If logos were omitted
from the Rhetoric, the rhetorical induction, or example, would disappear. The
12 1 5
Ft;
rhetorical syllogism, or enthymeme, would also disappear. This would remuve the
twenty-eight enthymatic topoi from the work also. Deliberative, forensic, and
epideictic discourse would rely solely on ethos and pathos for artificial supporting
material or artistic proof. Even some elements of pathos would be affected by a
lack of logos. Several of Aristotle's premises for bringing auditors into a certain
state of feeling would be affected by omitting logos. For example, a premise for
bringing auditors into a state of fear would no longer be able to rely on topics which
1) derive different meanings from a word, 2) elaborate on the consequences of an
act , or 3) attempt to expose ulterior motives in public statements. All three of these
topics could aid in invoking fear if logos were part of the system. In such a manner
one could examine every different premise within the Rhetoric to see how logos and
the various enthymemes affected each, thus establishing, in part, the interaction
patterns of logos within Aristotle's work.
The advantages of this recommendation to study interaction of sub-systems
and determine hierarchy are two fold. First, a hierarchy of ends and,
consequently, a hierarchy of systems, that is organized inductively can
established in a standard fashion for any rhetoric. Since the hierarchy is determined
in every case by the centralization of each sub-system, comparisons can be made
between a system at two different times and, hopefully, make changes more readily
identifiable and explainable. Second, individual rhetorical elements can be studied
in considerable depth by simply determining how they interact with other elements.
The method for accomplishing this task, removing the element under consideration,
is unique to rhetorical systems analysis.
Recommendation 4: Environmental needs should be conceptualized as
hierarchies ordered from the most general needs to the more specific with only
certain needs being emphasized at any given time within a culture. As will be
demonstrated, this view extends from Ehninger and Scott's view of rhetorical
systems and indicates that needs can be described by two different hierarchies. The
larger of the two is designated as the hierarchy ofpotential needs. This hierarchy
organizes all the past and present needs ever experienced. It represents a
cumulative record of all the needs ever responded to by rhetoricians and perhaps
even some ignored rhetorical needs. As new needs develop over time that have
never been felt before, they are fit into this hierarchy of potential needs. The reason
this has been designated as a hierarchy of "potential needs" is because all of the past
and present needs exhibit the potential to recur in the future. The smaller of the two
hierarchies, the hierarchy of present needs, so designated to maintain clarity, is a
subset of the larger hierarchy. It organizes only the present environmental needs
that affect a system. A system analyzed within its context or environment, should
exhibit hierarchies of sub-systems and ends that parallel the hierarchy of present
needs.
These two hierarchies are valuable to systems analysis because they indicate
why some systems survive over time while others fail. Needs change over time.
At any one moment of time, there may be a need to know how to speak within a
democracy. If a democratic republic is conquered by a bordering monarchy, a need
to know how to speak within a democracy may likely be replaced by a need to
know how to speak eloquently in the monarch's courts. If the monarchy is
eventually overthrown, the need to know how to speak in a democracy may again
arise. In situations such as this, the elements that make up the hierarchy of present
needs change over time. A Venn diagram of both hierarchies indicates this type of
change (Fig. 2).
At time tl, the hierarchy of potential needs containssixteen elements (on a general level). The hierarchyof present needs (shown by the thick line) containsonly three elements, i.e. n4, n5 and n6.
At time t2, the hierarchy of potential needs stillcontains sixteen elements, bJt the hierarchy ofpresent neerls has changed; it now contains needsn4, n5, n6, n13 and n16.
At time t3, two previously unseen needs have arisen(n17 and n18), while three present needs from timet2 have diminished (n4, n5, and n6). At this time,the hierarchy of potential needs contains eighteenelements. The hierarchy of present needs containsfour elements, i.e. n13, n16, n17, and n18.
Figure 2. Hierarchies of Potential and Present Needs at Three Different Times
15
MST COPY MIRE I s
This conceptualization of the two hierarchies indicates how changes in present
needs are basically just changes of emphasis among the potential needs. It also
illustrates how system change is simply an adaptation of a system to meet a change
in emphasis among potential needs.
This view of environmental needs is a product of both Douglas Ehninger
and Robert Scott. It establishes needs in a hierarchy that necessarily must parallel
Ehninger's hierarchy of ends since every end corresponds to a need. It also
recognizes Scott's conception of systems. Scott's argues that several different
faetorical systems exist through time and at any one time, only some of these
systems are emphasized.16 If this is the case, several different needs must also
exist through time with only some of these needs receiving emphasis. This is the
view taken by the conception of needs illustrated above. The approach also allows
a rhetorician to study the possibility of creating the "meta - system" discussed by
Ehninger which encompasses all past rhetorical systems.17 The meta - system is
simply that system which successfully satisfies the entire hierarchy of potential
needs.
This recommendation to view environmental needs in terms of a hierarchy
of potential needs and a hierarchy of present needs does not rely much at all on
Bertalanffy's concepts. It does, however, borrow from general systems theory
when it is used to study rhetorical systems over an extended period of time.
Recommendation 5: systems existing at different time periods should be
compared to see how patterns of emphasis within the hierarchy of potential needs
have changed over time. This is a valuable avenue of analysis for the rhetorical
systems researcher. By studying how the pattern of emphasis among the hierarchy
of potential needs changes, a systems analyst can determine how the culture and
society of an environment have changed over time and how the systems have
adapted accordingly. Changes in emphasis, perhaps even more importantly, can
give clues as to why some systems fail over time while others succeed. For
instance, a system which addresses not only the needs of the time, but also several
other potential needs, has a better chance of surviving than a system addressing
solely the present needs of the time. Assume hypothetically that there are only
seven potential needs, nl, n2, n3, n4, n5, n6, and n7 at some initial time, tl.
These are all the needs existing previous to and including time tl. At this particular
time only needs nl, n2, and n3 are emphasiexl. There also exists a rhetorical
system which just happens to address all three needs designated S(123). (Fig. 3)
time: t1
system: S(123)(works well)
..... - -I potentialr--., _. need
C.) emphasizedneed
Figure 3. The Functioning of System S(123) at Time tl
The system works perfectly well until a later time, t2. At this time, needs n2 and n3
are no longer emphasized, but need n4 has arisen. In this case, system S(123) is
only partially successful since it only addresses half of the needs of the time. (Fig. 4)
time:12
system: S(12'(works partiahy)
S.potential
_ need
(DI emphasizedneed
Figure 4. The Functioning of System S(123) at Time t2
Assuming that system S(123) does not or cannot adapt to need n4, it runs into
difficulty at a later time, 13. At this time, need n1 disappears and needs n5 and n6
have arisen. In this case, system S(123) fails to function and dies out. (Fig.5)
time: t3
system: S(123)(does not work)
-%) potential
- - - need
C2) emphasizedneed
Figure 5. The Functioning of System S(123) at Time t3
If, however, system S(123) was revised to meet the need n4, it would still be
partially successful at time 13.
Added insight into survivability is given by Bertalanffy whose theory
explains why some systems develop to states such as the one described above and
18
21
then cannot adapt to change. Bertalanffy observed that systems undergo
progressive segregation, differentiation, and sometimes progressive
mechanization, phenomena that often result when syAems are revised to higher
degrees of complexity and organization.18 This is exactly what happens in certain
rhetorical systems. Progressive segregation or the decrease in interaction among
sub-systems can be seen in Thomas Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique. Wilson
attempted to compartmentalize rhetorical theory under the five classical canons,
inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memorio, and pronuntiatio. In so doing, he placed
the three types of oratory, deliberative, judicial, and demonstrative unaer inventio
and the affections, classically known as pathos, under disposition. During classical
times, pathos played one of three important modes of artistic proof with which to
support the three types of oratory. Pathos played an integral interactive role in the
development of supporting material. Within Wilson's rhetorical system, pathos is
something to be considered separate from inventio and the creative process. It has
essentially moved into a role that allows less interaction with the creative processes
involved in generating the three types of oratory.
An example of differentiation, or the tendency to move toward increased
specialization, may be found within Richard Sherry's or Henry Peacham's stylistic
rhetorics. Their rhetorics not only specialized in the treatment of style, but they also
broke style down into extremely specialized figures and tropes. The differentiation
went so far that the stylistic rhetorics actually underwent progressive
mechanization, the tendency of a system to become so specialized that it can only
perform one function. This type of analysis explains why stylistic rhetorics by
such scholars as Henry Peacham and Richard Sherry lost their favor. Though they
both satisfied the emphasized needs of the time, they were too restrictive to adapt
19 2 2
successfully to new needs or recurring past needs, especially as the emphasis
within Western society shifted to the more logical and scientific I3aconian world
view. The unsuccessful systems in this case underwent too much progressive
mechanization to adapt to a changing environment. They focused on one specific
need and were unable to adapt through revision to the changing emphases among
potential needs.
An understanding of survivability, therefore, depends not only on an
understanding of a system's ability to accommodate new or recurring needs, but
also on a recognition of those systems which undergo progressive segregation and
differentiation, for these systems may undergo the most detrimental step,
progressive mechaniration, and drastically risk failure if the environmental needs
change. A rhetorical systems analyst equipped with such an understanding can
explain an important phenomenon among rhetorics -- their failure or survival as a
system.
Recommendation 6: contrasts of differing systems at any one time should
be pursued to determine why one system differs from the other(s). Analysis may
indicate that one system accurately determined the needs of its environment while
another was in considerable error. Analysis may also indicate that one system
attempted only to address a small group while another attempted to address needs of
an entire populace. In any case, the differences in each system's focus may explain
why one system survives longer than another. The breadth of focus would indicate
the numbers of needs addressed and, as shown earlier, this does affect the
survivability of a system.
In addition, Bertalanffy's concepts also apply to such a rhetorical study.
These systems should be contrasted to see how progressively segregated,
20 r;3
differentiated, or progressively mechanized each is in relatioa to the other(s). For
instance, one system may be much more progressively segregated or differentiated
than another. This type of analysis results in interesting insights about how two
rhetorics behave that only Bertanlanffy's concepts can illustrate. Talaeus' Ramistic
rhetoric, written at approximately the same time as Thomas Wilson's rhetoric, is
much more narrow in its focus. It breaks rhetoric down into only two categories,
elocution and delivery. Other elements addressed in Wilson's rhetoric are either
ignored or delegated to Ramus' treatise on dialectic. Though the environmental
needs were similar for Wilson and Talaeus, Ramism satisfied several of those needs
within a system of dialectic, thus leaving fewer needs to be satisfied by a system of
rhetor This reflects a greater degree of differentiation in Ramistic thought and
rhetoric. This delineation between rhetoric and dialectic, however, eventually led to
a counterreform in Ramistic rhetoric. Howell points out that one counterreformist,
Charles Butler, was not satisfied with Ramistic dialectic's attempts to address the
needs of the rhetorical environment even though Butler was originally a strong
advocate of Ramism:
Butler limited rhetoric severely to style and delivery with the
Ramistic right hand of his youth, and with the less Ramistic left
hand of his old age he sought to broaden Ramus' logic by applying
it to oratory and by showing that there was for the orator an extra
logical theory of invention, arrangement, and memory.19
Butler essentially was calling for a less differentiated or specialized system of
rhetoric to satisfy what he perceived were the needs the orator.
The above analysis in this particular case is valuable for two reasons. First,
it illustrates how the perception of environmental, rhetorical needs fluctuates.
Wilson perceived the need to address the various steps in an orator's speech
preparation from the initial creative glimmer to the actual delivery of the message.
Ramus and Talaeus, on the other hand, thought that the needs of the orator were
more narrowly focused on elocution and delivery. Butler and other
counterreformists indicate that Ramus and Talaeus works may have underestimated
or misperceived the creative needs of the orator. Second, analysis illustrates how
differentiated systems may work successfully in an environment that exhibits a
similar degree of differentiation. Ramus attempted to clarify the boundaries
between the various arts of his time and in so doing, the intellectual and pedagogical
movement he initiated divided each art into separate differentiated units.
Consequently, the environment as a whole was quite differentiated. Ramistic
rhetoric, therefore rendered a differentiated service to a differentiated environment
and was received successfully. The Ramistic differentiation of rhetoric only began
to break down when scholars realized that the environment could not be
differentiated as simply as Ramus intended. As the environment moved away from
such isolated and specialibal disciplines, counterreformists such as Butler began
creating new less differentiated rhetorics that incorporated some elements present in
Wilson's rhetoric all along.
Differences between systems existing at the same time offer unique insights
into the survivability of rhetorics. The systems may exhibit different breadths of
focus which has a direct impact on adaptability through revision. Insights into
survivability increase if a systems analyst contrasts the degree of progressive
segregation, differentiation, and progressive mechanization among each rhetorical
system.
Recommendation 7: Rhetorical systems analysis should focus on long term
changes within a particular system. As stated earlier, efforts to correct failings may
result either in revised rhetorics or in entirely new systems. If entirely new systems
are created, a scholar should be able to chart the various generations of systems
created to adapt to the environment and counter failure if they are extant.
Valuable insight could come from studying the evolution of systems to meet
needs over a long period of time. For instance, a systems analyst could focus
entirely on the system of canons discussed by Cicero and Quintilian and then trace
their appearance and evolution in the work of Melanchthon, Cox, and Wilson.
This type of systems analysis, relying on a study of input by Melanchthon, Cox,
and Wilson is essentially a systems approach for tracing Cox's or Wilson's lineage.
The primary difficulty with this type of analysis may bc finding enough of an extant
record to trace the development of a particular set of systems.
Summary
The above seven reccmmendations give rhetorical systems theory the ability
to make useful insights into rhetorics or rhetorical elements by illustrating how
environmental needs affect systems, how they force systems to change in order to
survive, how scholarly input maintains systems through revisions, how sub-
systems or individual rhetorical elements interact with each other, how hierarchies
of needs, ends, and systems are structured in terms of emphasis and centralization,
and how progressive segregation, differentiation, and progressive mechanization
affect hierarchical ordered systems over time.
23
The recommendations hopefully clear up some of the vagueness of
Ehninger's original terminology. A system, "an organized, consistent, and
coherent way of talking about something," may be redefined as 'a body of work
comprised of a single treatise, a group of treatises, or a single element within one
rhetorical treatise, that satisfies an environmental need by rendering a service back
to the environment.' The system must also contain a distinct method and a
hierarchical structure of ends and interacting sub-systems.
The recommendation that systems be viewed in terms of hierarchies of
needs to which they respond hopefully alleviates Anderson's concern that the
relationship between a system and its environment is not adequately addressed.
The recommendation also limits a rhetorician's ability to pull a system out of its
historical context and give it a future bias, by forcing a system's survivability to be
viewed as a direct function of environmental interaction.
Finally, the recommendations do not require that a "false stasis" be applied
to a "kinetic phenomena." Instead, they explain the kinetic aspects of the
phenomena, the ability to change over time. Also, systems analysis need not be as
concerned as before with arts or skills that cannot be compartmentalized easily. If
rhetoricians cannot study systems or sub-systems with concrete boundaries, they
can study interaction through permeable or indistinct boundaries. The seven
recommendations based on a general systems theory analog hopefully offer a more
complete view to this historiographic approach introduced in its broadest sketch by
Ehninger.
Endnotes
1 Douglas Ehninger, "On Rhetoric and Rhetorics, " Western Speech Journal
31 (1967): 242-249; Douglas Ehninger, "On Systems of Rhetoric," Philosophy
and Rhetoric 1 (Summer 1968):131.
2 Ray E. McKerrow, "On Rhetorical Systems: A Symposium,"
Pennsylvania Speech Communication Annual 38(1982): 5-7; Eric Skopec,
"Systems Theory as an Historiographic Perspective," Pennsylvania Speech
Communications Annual 38 (1982): 13; Floyd D. Anderson, "On Systems of
Western Rhetoric: A Response to 'Whig' Misreadings," PennsylvaMa Speech
Communication Annual 38 (1982): 19; Michael C. Leff, "Concrete Abstractions:
A Response to Anderson and Skopec." Pennsylvania Speech Communication
Annual 38 (1982): 21-24.
3 Eric Skopec, "The Theory of Expression in Selected Eighteenth-Century
Rhetoiics," Explorations in Rhetoric: Studies in Honor of Douglas Ehninzer
(Glenview, Illinois: Scott, 1982) 119-136.
4 Skopec, "Systems" 13.
5 Anderson 15.
6 Ehninger, "On Systems: 142.
7 Ehninger, "On Systems: 141.
8 Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern
Biological Thought (New York: Harper, 1952) 10. This work illustrates the range
of system sizes unique to general systems theory.
9A. Kibedi Varga, "Rhetoric, a Story or a System? A Challenge to
Historians of Renaissance Rhetoric," Renaissance Rhetoric: Studies in the Theory
25
and Practice of Renaissance Rhetoric ed. James J. Murphy (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1983) 90.
10 A decent discussion of entropy, negantropy, and the concept of the open
system can be found in the following works of Bertalanffy: "The Meaning of
General Systems Theory," General System Theory: Foundation, Development,
Applications (New York: Braziller, 1968); "The Theory of Open Systems in
Physics and Biology," Science 3(1950): 23-29. Also see Ludwig von
Bertalanffy's "An Outline of General System Theory," British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science 1 (1951):134.
11 Enos, Ricahrd Leo, ed., "Douglas Ehninger's The Promise of Rhetoric:'
A Ten-Year Re-View," Rhetoric Society Quarterly 18 (Spring, 1988): 193.
12 John T. Harwood, ed., The Rhetoric of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard
Lamv (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986) 350.
13H.M.Hubbel, introduction, Orator, by Cicero (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962) 298.
14G.L. Hendrickson, "Cicero's Correspondence with Brutus and Calvus on
Oratorical Style," American Journal of Philology 47(1926): 254.
15 A good discussion of centralization and hierarchy is found within
Bertalanffy's "An Outline of General System Theory" and Problems of Life.
16 Robert L. Scott, "Colloquy I. A Synoptic View of Systems of Western
Rhetoric," Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (1975):439-447.
17 Ehninger, "On Systems" 142-143.
18 Progressive segregation, differentiation, and progressive mechnization
are discussed thoroughly in Bertalanffy's "An Outline of General System Theory"
and Problems of Life.
26
19 Wilbur Samuel Howell, Lo ic and Rhetoric in En land 1500- 700
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956) 319.
3 0
27